4 ms·

The contradictions I'm talking about are in the writing, not in the subject. Contradictions like "he was idle and poor but he earned a lot at his successful bus

The contradictions I'm talking about are in the writing, not in the subject. Contradictions like "he was idle and poor but he earned a lot at his successful business". The fact that he also spent a lot, so he was always tight on money, does not justify the "idle and poor" (ne'er-do-well and almost wastrel) parts. We all contain contradictions, but not "he was short but tall" ones like that.

dang 3y ago
The bits you've quoted aren't contradictory, and the contradictory bits aren't quotes, even though you put quotation marks around them. The passage about Kennan's father is perfectly coherent. He didn't live up to the class status he married into. The career he chose could have been lucrative, but wasn't, not because of a lack of expertise but because he was inept at other things. There's nothing contradictory there and it's normal stuff for a biographical piece. I can't understand where your criticism of this article is coming from. I could understand someone disliking it because they disagree with the author either ideologically or about Kennan, but since you say it's not that, I'm at a loss. Personally I learned more about Kennan from it than everything else I've read about him put together. That's not saying much, as I'd only read maybe 3 or 4 things, but it's interesting, and he was a fascinating figure. The obvious thing to criticize would be the tedious bits when the author abandons his topic and becomes a harumphing curmudgeon, but at least he gets back on topic after that.
- dundarious 3y ago
  I wish you had written the essay, as that aspect about class status is coherent, but not found in the section at hand. All I get from the author is disdain, with a hint that it's centered on the subject's lack of ambition. Of course I have other critiques, but to borrow a strange phrase from the movie JFK, is it worth picking gnat shit out of pepper?
- foldr 3y ago
  "Harumphing curmudgeon" is putting it mildly. The following example paragraph isn't even a coherent expression of a far right viewpoint by Claremont's usual standards; it's just spittle-flecked nonsense. >The present ruling class, by contrast, does not appear to wish to improve the people but apparently seeks to make them worse. How else to explain policies that encourage poverty, joblessness, obesity, and illegitimacy? Or teaching children to hate their ancestors, their country, and themselves—and then encouraging them to self-mutilate while punishing parents who try to stop them? The government and its corporate allies have morphed into a kind of nationwide crime syndicate pushing drugs, gambling, sexual degeneracy, and every imaginable form of vice. The next step on the road to national dissolution, it is now clear, will be expropriation, a.k.a., racial “reparations.” One wonders what comes after all that money is spent on an attempt to square “the debt that can never be repaid”? Although there is some interesting information in the article, I do have to wonder whether I should believe a word of the analysis beyond the barest biographical facts. Knowing little about Kennan, I would rather turn to sources that are less prone to wild exaggerations and fabrications. (Anton has past form here, for anyone who cares to check.)
  - dang 3y ago
    Of course I was putting it mildly, because it's exactly the least interesting part of the article and the whole idea of discussion here is to optimize for what's interesting.
    - foldr 3y ago
      I wasn't criticizing you for putting it mildly – especially given your role in the site. However, I think it's also legitimate to point out that sloppy passages like the one I quoted undermine the author's overall credibility. Most people are (like me) reading this casually and won't have the time or resources to independently verify the more interesting claims. If someone makes up patent nonsense about the present day, how far can I trust them to accurately report far more obscure historical facts?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

dang 3y ago

The bits you've quoted aren't contradictory, and the contradictory bits aren't quotes, even though you put quotation marks around them. The passage about Kennan's father is perfectly coherent. He didn't live up to the class status he married into. The career he chose could have been lucrative, but wasn't, not because of a lack of expertise but because he was inept at other things. There's nothing contradictory there and it's normal stuff for a biographical piece. I can't understand where your criticism of this article is coming from. I could understand someone disliking it because they disagree with the author either ideologically or about Kennan, but since you say it's not that, I'm at a loss. Personally I learned more about Kennan from it than everything else I've read about him put together. That's not saying much, as I'd only read maybe 3 or 4 things, but it's interesting, and he was a fascinating figure. The obvious thing to criticize would be the tedious bits when the author abandons his topic and becomes a harumphing curmudgeon, but at least he gets back on topic after that.

dundarious 3y ago
I wish you had written the essay, as that aspect about class status is coherent, but not found in the section at hand. All I get from the author is disdain, with a hint that it's centered on the subject's lack of ambition. Of course I have other critiques, but to borrow a strange phrase from the movie JFK, is it worth picking gnat shit out of pepper?
foldr 3y ago
"Harumphing curmudgeon" is putting it mildly. The following example paragraph isn't even a coherent expression of a far right viewpoint by Claremont's usual standards; it's just spittle-flecked nonsense. >The present ruling class, by contrast, does not appear to wish to improve the people but apparently seeks to make them worse. How else to explain policies that encourage poverty, joblessness, obesity, and illegitimacy? Or teaching children to hate their ancestors, their country, and themselves—and then encouraging them to self-mutilate while punishing parents who try to stop them? The government and its corporate allies have morphed into a kind of nationwide crime syndicate pushing drugs, gambling, sexual degeneracy, and every imaginable form of vice. The next step on the road to national dissolution, it is now clear, will be expropriation, a.k.a., racial “reparations.” One wonders what comes after all that money is spent on an attempt to square “the debt that can never be repaid”? Although there is some interesting information in the article, I do have to wonder whether I should believe a word of the analysis beyond the barest biographical facts. Knowing little about Kennan, I would rather turn to sources that are less prone to wild exaggerations and fabrications. (Anton has past form here, for anyone who cares to check.)
- dang 3y ago
  Of course I was putting it mildly, because it's exactly the least interesting part of the article and the whole idea of discussion here is to optimize for what's interesting.
  - foldr 3y ago
    I wasn't criticizing you for putting it mildly – especially given your role in the site. However, I think it's also legitimate to point out that sloppy passages like the one I quoted undermine the author's overall credibility. Most people are (like me) reading this casually and won't have the time or resources to independently verify the more interesting claims. If someone makes up patent nonsense about the present day, how far can I trust them to accurately report far more obscure historical facts?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]